By Smt. Beena. M, Member:-
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The Complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 6,000/- from the Opposite Party, Co-Operative Society. Thereafter, the Opposite Party had sent a notice to the Complainant on 28-11-2015 stating that the amount availed by him has increased to an amount of Rs. 15,809/- including interest and various other expenses (Rs. 6000/- Principal amount, Rs. 8,551/- interest, Rs, 505/- notice expenses and Rs. 753/- Other expenses). Then the Complainant approached the Opposite Party Society and discussed the matter and settled for an amount of Rs. 9500/-which was paid by him on 19-2-2018 for which a receipt was issued, in which it was noted as full settlement and later, on 29-11-2018, the Opposite Party issued a certificate, certifying that the Complainant has no liability existing with them. Thereafter, the Complainant received a notice from the Assistant Registrar / Arbitrator on 27-11-2018 directing him to appear before the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society in a suit numbered as l511/15 on 15th December, 2018 on a petition filed by the Secretary of the Opposite Party against the Complainant for the due amount of Rs.15,809/-. The said notice was served at a function to the Complainant and thereby he was put to insult in front of his relatives and friends who mistook that he had not repaid the loan availed by him from the Opposite Party, Moreover, when the Complainant later went to Corporation Bank, Kalpetta to avail another loan, it was refused to him as they said that he was a defaulter, even though he tried to explain his innocence they said that as per the record of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society he was seen as a defaulter. The Complainant had to face this insult after the repayment of the entire loan amount and the interest. The evil motive of the Opposite Party Society was to exhort money from the Complainant in an unethical manner. The Opposite Party should have informed the Assistant Registrar/ Arbitrator regarding the closure of the loan before despatching notice from their office. The loan closure by the Complainant clearly shows the bona fide nature of the Complainant. The Opposite Party even after receiving the entire amount due from the Complainant along with other charges had failed to intimate the Assistant Registrar/ Arbitrator that the entire amount was received from the Complainant. So the notice was sent to the Complainant to appear before The Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society in a suit and thereby there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party due to which the Complainant has incurred great mental agony and hardships. There is gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party Society represented by its secretary is liable to compensate the Complainant as he had to suffer a lot due to the irresponsible act of the Opposite Party. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the Opposite Party appeared and filed their version.
4. The Opposite Party submits that the Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and is liable to be dismissed. The Complaint filed will not come under the definition of Consumer Dispute and the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission, since there is no consumer dispute. Moreover, there is bar under section 69 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act to entertain this complaint. The Opposite Party is not a bank hence there is no Banker and customer relation as contented. He was having some transactions with society and the Opposite Party is unaware about the dealing of Complainant with other banks or societies. The averments in the complaint itself show that the complaint is a chronic defaulter in repaying loan to the Opposite Party. If the Complainant was a trust worthy person and a man of pride he could have paid the loan without default, it is pertinent to note that the loan was of the year 2005 after availing loan the Complainant was not repaying the loan amount as agreed and did not even respond to the request to repay the due. There after registered notices were sent to the Complainant on 07-06-2007, 12-1-2008, 29-5-2008, 24-11-2008, 18-06-2009, 21-11-2009, 16-01-2012 and on 19-02-2018 to repay loan dues. The Complainant suppressed all actual facts and filed this complaint with an intention to claim money alleging false statements. The filing of Arbitration the Opposite Party was based on non-payment of dues and was preferred much prior to the repayment by Complainant. The said act of Opposite Party was legal, proper and valid before the competent authority. The contents in the notices and the Arbitration case were true and there is no question of defamation as contented. The receipt of registered letter and notice from Court was acknowledged by Complainant only. If he propagated his act of not paying debt to a society is not a matter related to this Opposite Party. No mental agony was caused to the Complainant due to any act of the Opposite Party. This Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant. The payment made by the Complainant was intimated to Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies timely. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the side of this Opposite Party as contented. The complaint is baseless, without bona fide and merits is liable to be dismissed. The non sanctioning of any loan to any person is with the discretion of lending institution. This Opposite Party does not admit the denial of any loan to Complainant as contented. The Opposite Party prays to dismiss the complaint with cost to them.
5. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1, the document produced marked as Ext A1 to A5. On behalf of the Opposite Party, Secretary of the Opposite Party society examined as OPW1.
6. On perusal of the complaint, version and documents, the Commission raised the following points for consideration:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?
7. Point No.1 and 2: For the sake of convenience and brevity both the points are considered together.
8. We have perused the documents filed along with the complaint including the certificate issued by the Opposite Party. This certificate clearly indicates that the Complainant paid the entire settled amount to the Opposite Party. We have also perused the notice issued by the Arbitrator, in which the Complainant was directed to appear to clear the due loan amount. Here the Complainant never appeared before the Arbitrator with the receipt and certificate issued by the Opposite Party, to convince them that the matter settled with Opposite Party and paid the entire settled loan amount. Hence, in our opinion that the Complainant has filed this complaint at premature stage. Upon consideration of the case, it is evident before us that even though the loan dispute was settled between the parties, the arbitrator send notice to the Complainant to appear before them. Since, the Complainant has not made any representation before the Opposite Party reporting about the notice issued by the Arbitrator. The complaint is pre mature and the proper course with the Complainant to make representation, reporting issuance of notice to the Opposite Party. Here still the matter is pending before the Arbitrator. If that be so, we find sufficient ground to hold and decide that the complainant has filed this case as a pre mature stage having no cause of action for raising allegation of deficiency in service against the Opposite Party. As a result, this case is not maintainable in its present form and the same should be dismissed with direction to the Opposite Party for disposal of the grievance within 30 days from the date of taking steps of the Complainant in terms of settlement and the notice issued by the Assistant Registrar/Arbitrator. In view of the above all the issues are disposed of accordingly. Needless to say, that at this stage we have not commented on the merits of the allegations of the Complainant and if his grievance is not redressed by the Opposite Party, then the Complainant may file a fresh complaint, before this Commission or other appropriate authorities for redressal of his grievance. Hence, present complaint filed by the Complainant is premature and dismissed as such.
9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Documents attached with complaint are hereby ordered to be returned to the Complainant through his counsel.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 7th day of August 2024. Date of filing:06.03.2020.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. George. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. K.B. Bibindas. Secretary, Kalpetta Co-operative Urban
Society Ltd.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Petition. dt:28.11.2015.
A2. Copy of Receipt. dt:19.02.2018.
A3. Copy of Certificate. dt:29.11.2018.
A4. Copy of Notice. dt:22.11.2018.
A5. Copy of Registered Cover.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
